To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society, specifically The United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

I will attempt to directly correlate crime not only as predominently perpetrated by men but it's direct corelation with the acquisition of resources. I will directly correlate this with lower socioeconomic status and lack of adequate infrastructure both educational and economic leading to an ill or the virtually non existence of equal opportunity for competitive advantage among males for resources. I will also demonstrate the direct link and correlation to the occurrence of rape or forced rape in environments where male competitive advantage is in turmoil or non existent such as the case in poverty stricken areas and combat zones in war.

Although I have not read it yet the book below should provide a good read to understand human behavior in terms of rape from a biological and evolutionary perspective in humans and it's occurrence in the animal kingdom. I believe it will be a truly good read to help us understand and prevent rape better.

In this blogging I will illustrate the case made by several progressive women on why the 76 cents for every dollar a man makes is misleading and ascribed to the largely false accusation that there is pay discrimination for doing the same job a man does.

The wage gap officially exposed! BLS & Dept of Labor FINAL REPORT!!!

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS OFFICIAL REPORT!http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art4full.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FINAL REPORT! http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Article (3)By Cathy Young OUT WITH THE OLD AND OUT WITH THE NEW Feminism of every stripe has failed. It's time for a gender equality movement.http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/26/feminism/index.html

In this article Jeanne illustrates that this statistic was gathered by a blanket approach of taking all women and men in the workforce and adding up their wages to find the disparity. While as a whole the disparity arrived at is true this statistic is widely disseminated under the false accusation that "women get paid less for doing the same job". She makes the case that there is no possibility for this data to substantiate such a claim and obviously from the methodology used she is entirely correct.

Stating quote "To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position. But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it." "It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked." "Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average." And yet Hillary Clinton and The President elect of The United States repeats the claim of blatant discrimination to the nation!

In defense of this claim: "Heidi Hartmann believes actual discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap." However "Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does." The actual amount of discrimination or to who what and how it can be attributed to is unknown at this time! Suffice to say that the current misinformation is suiting the feminist agenda well enough so as not to try and find the actual numbers and is quite content to say all women are discriminated against and not paid equally for the same work.

The article also states that: "A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers." (other mothers perhaps meaning women who already work there and then have children? or other non-mothers?)

It must be noted that this finding comes from what was supposed to be a bipartisan neutral party commission yet 16 of the 21 people on the panel are women. Three of which come from special interest women and minority organizations such as the "Women's Legal Defense Fund" "Black Enterprise Magazine" and "Hispanics Organized for Political Equality" Not to say that they did not make a good attempt at bipartisanship but being that the study does involve the special interest of women the panel to me seems a little skewed toward one representative gender here. Of course it would be impossible to account for such things because in todays politically correct society purposefully making the panel truly bipartisan would be discriminatory toward gender in itself. Feminist are also comfortable perpetuating the hateful polarization between the needs of men, women and familys and simply will not mention that the findings mention the same discrimination of pay for single men with no children. They are quite comfortable taking the stance that women are victims of "The Patriarchy". http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=key_workplace

Furthermore it is common knowledge that a business will hire who they think will be beneficial to them and them alone and it must be noted that if the women above are in fact caregivers to children and family then this is not beneficial to business. It is then made clear that any discrimination is not the product of "The Patriachy" of male oppression but common business sense and the gender roles, decisions and struggle of the individual American family. However I can say that the study suggest pay preference is given to "male providers" with a wife and children. If anything it can be said the findings suggest bias toward being pro men with families of which BY THE WAY, these women are a member of and not against women by reason of their gender. It can be said the the feminist dilema then is not how to get equal pay for women but how to get women to stop taking conscious and active actual responsibility for the "child problem" to allow natural economic business forces to realign to the then increased productive potential of women. It is not the American family feminists seek to benefit but equal production potential for women in the work place. Feminists do not seek increased earnings potential for women in general, they seek increased earnings potential for women in a the family unit which will be by enlarge if not entirely nullified and offset by the then increased child care cost. This is a zero sum outcome. Marginal income disparity within the family unit is not enough for feminists to view women as equals in a family relationship. It seems that try as they might women are content to define themselves and their needs and men as well. And in eyes of American women to let a man and husband be a husband and for them to be a mother.

UNFORTUNATELY FEMINISM HAS BEEN THE ONLY VOICE OF AMERICAN FAMILES WHO'S INTEREST IT DOES NOT HAVE IN MIND. WE TRUSTED FEMINISTS AND WOMEN'S GROUPS WITH MENDING, HEALING, CHANGING AND MAINTAINING OUR SOCIAL FABRIC AND THEY HAVE FAILED US ALL. IT IS TIME FOR US ALL TO RISE UP AND TAKE CHARGE OF THIS MESS. FEMINISM IS BUILDING AN INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND DISBANDED FAMILYS, SYSTEMIC TRANSFERENCE OF WEALTH FROM MEN TO THEIR EX-WIVES AND CHILDREN THEY CAN NOT SEE, AND GOVERNMENT HUSBANDRY. IT TRULY IS BUILT ON THE PREMISE OF ELIMINATING MEN FROM WOMEN'S LIVES AND THAT OF THEIR CHILDREN. IT SUBSIDIZES THE DESTRUCTION OF FAMILY AND INSPIRES THE MONUMENTOUS AND PROFITABLE DIVORCE INDUSTRY. PURE CAPITALISM DOES NOT FACTOR FOR EXTERNALITIES THAT BUILD A HEALTHY AND STRONG NATION. ONLY OUR VOICES AND HUMAN REASONING CAN REGULATE THIS UNTAMED BEAST AND MONEY ENGINE.

So it can then be said that while women work less than men as a whole there is also a wide distribution of MANY variables as to why the disparity as a whole is true. Mostly it is my belief that women gravitate to and are interested in different jobs than men and as the author noted by enlarge give preference to caring for their children and family. The feminist agenda is to strip women from the needs of their new born child and children and submit them to institutionalized and corporate homogeneous "Mcvironment" of "child care" facilities. 12 weeks paternity leave is supposed to be sufficient for men and women before they surrender their child to the "village" as Hillary Clinton likes to call it.

I don't know what everyone else thinks but we BOTH MEN AND WOMEN should be given family leave to care for our children in any way they need. Americans should not have to declare a category or inform their employer of why they are taking time off. Both men and women in this country need to be encouraged to care for our family's with a large pubic service campaign. Time off should be explicitly confidential and paid in many regards. As to how we will get capitalism to factor in HUMAN NEEDS and not to discriminate should they do so is a matter of CHANGING OUR CULTURAL VALUES. An infrastructure should be created in which a collective social fund is available for working families if companies are unable to pay for our time off. We need to change our cultural values and understand that a MIGHTY AND POWERFUL EMPIRE can not be sustained by measuring and demanding productive potential alone.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE LEAST WORKERS RIGHTS THAN ANY DEVELOPED NATION. LABOR HAS BEEN OVER TAKEN BY CAPITOL FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS AND WE CAN NOT CONTINUE LIKE THIS. PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFIT ARE OUR MOST IMPORTANT CULTURAL VALUES AND THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT MY PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM STRESS, ILL HEALTH, VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION OF FAMILY. WE HAVE THE NEXT TO LAST UNICEF CHIILD WELLBEING RATING OF ALL DEVELOPED NATIONS BESIDES GREAT BRITAN. WE ALSO HAVE THE LOWEST OR NEXT TO LOWEST SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS RATINGS. I AM VERY DEEPLY TROUBLED BY PARALLELS TO THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE STATE OF MY DEAR BELOVED COUNTRY. I AM ONE MAN BUT CALL UPON MY COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN TO HELP SAVE MY COUNTRY, MY AMERICA, MY BEAUTIFUL LADY LIBERTY IS DYING!! GOD SAVE MY COUNTRY AND GIVE MY PEOPLE STRENGTH. WAKE THEM FROM THEIR COMPLACENCY!

Article (2)"Given all the misused statistics to the contrary, equally qualified women make about 95 to 98 cents on the man's dollar, according to studies by June O'Neill of the City University of New York"

(Given the above I challenge anyone to study the difference in wages among men's pay who do the same job!)

Furchtgott-Roth sites statistics from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth stating that "Women, not necessarily urban or college educated ones, often choose to take jobs that earn less money and require less experience and education of their own volition - to stay home and raise families. Bundling these women into statistical equations to produce the disparaging 74-cent figure is not only unfair, but it is also reckless"

Article (3) "They insist, for instance, that women earn 75 cents to a man's dollar "for the same work," even though economists like Harvard University's Claudia Goldin readily concede that the pay gap largely reflects differences in occupation, skills and length of employment, and even though the gap is rapidly closing for young women whose career patterns are more similar to men's. They also claim that schools are rife with anti-female bias (when 55 percent of college degrees are obtained by women)." "No less disturbingly, the women's movement often seems to have shifted from the goal of equal treatment to one of female advantage."

American women I pray will embrace their feminine strengths and realize that women have income that is not measured by their work alone. Dr. Warren Farrell has illustrated that much of men's earning are transfered and spent on women. Women have an over all higher net worth than men when added up. We need to stop fighting and find balance in our lives as men and women. We need to compliment our weaknesses and demand a family friendly government. Demand that essential human liberty and needs be factored into our mighty giant.

Very briefly the wage gap of 76 cents is what economists call the RAW WAGE GAP or what men and women put together earn as a whole of the population and not "for the same job" as feminists will tell you.. Here are a couple of reasons for this 24 cent gap:

Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women. Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs. Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics). Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five." Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay. Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward. The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women. Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do. Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week. Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay. Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay. Men work more weeks per year than women. Men have half the absenteeism rate of women. Men are more willing to commute long distances to work. Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs. Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel. In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations. When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater. Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential. Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.

"For 25 years, attempts to prevent rape have not only failed to be informed by an evolutionary approach; they have been based on explanations designed to make ideological statements rather than to be consistent with scientific knowledge of human behavior. One cannot understand evolutionary explanations of rape, much less evaluate them, without a solid grasp of evolutionary theory. Failure to appreciate this point has caused much valuable time to be wasted on misplaced attacks on evolutionary explanations." -RANDY THORNHILL and CRAIG T. PALMER The MIT Press

From the statement above one can infer that the scientists are asking that rape be understood from an evolutionary, physiological and biological perspective in order to understand and prevent it. That rape does not occur by conscious male intention to hurt women.

EXTRACT FROM MY BLOG POST ENTITLED ""I will attempt to directly correlate crime not only as predominently perpetrated by men but it's direct corelation with the acquisition of resources. I will directly correlate this with lower socioeconomic status and lack of adequate infrastructure both educational and economic leading to an ill or the virtually non existence of equal opportunity for competitive advantage among males for resources. I will also demonstrate the direct link and correlation to the occurrence of rape or forced rape in environments where male competitive advantage is in turmoil or non existent such as the case in poverty stricken areas and combat zones in war. (PENDING)

Carrie Lucas, of the Independent Womens Forum, rebukes claims that "one in four" women are raped.[http://www.iwf.org/news/show/19076.html One in Four? Rape myths do injustice, too]

While seated in my Women's Studies class I first heard the statement that "One in four women are raped" I was very deeply hurt to the core of my being. I knew in my heart and mind right away that it had to be a false statement especially in the context in which it was presented. Despite how singular my experience may have been. Pop Culture and many but not all public speaking and information disseminated about rape is misleading. Frankly the way it was presented in this class was offensive and divisive and demeaning to men. So I set out to find the answer. One fallacy is that as Mrs Carrie Lucas illustrated rape is alleged by such a wide range of subjective feelings of women and circumstances. Women are allowed to define and indeed to allege rape by a state of feeling rather than a logical phase of events or actions that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In essence many allegations and actual rape convictions are made by a jury of the public and men are imprisoned for many many many years of their lives because a woman decided that she was raped. In this way in many instances she is not made to take any responsibility for her actions and subsequent feelings brought about by them. The sex act and indeed making love in our culture is always seen as something that is done to her by a man in all instances and is never something she takes part in in any way.

Many rapes are alleged by a sexual act that a woman regrets and most are not forced rapes by physical violence. Feminists say that rape is defined as nonconsenting penetration obtained by force, by threat of bodily harm, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent. There are elements of this definition that I disagree with.

My objections are (1) allegations of rape influenced by regret or (non consenting)and (2) allegations of rape brought about by > "or incapable of giving consent" that leads to injustice. I agree for the most part but disagree and will illustrate my points below:

IT MUST BE MADE KNOWN, AND MODERN SCIENCE AGREES THAT TRUE RAPE IS NOT AN ACT OF PASSION BUT AN ACT OF VIOLENCE. Ask any man you know if he would be able to obtain an erection after directly attacking a woman dragging her into the bushes while she is fighting and crying and the answer is NO. It must be made clear that most men are not physiologically or psychologically able to become aroused or obtain an erection from this. True rape is a pathology and aberrational skew from normal male biology and is not normal male behavior or biology. Contrary to feminists would have you believe most men are not potential rapists waiting to strike. I will, in the article show that chances are infact EXTREEMLY rare that a woman will be walking down the street at night and encounter a pathological rapist. Again please let me make clear MOST ALL MEN ARE NOT EVEN PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR PHYSIOLOGICALLY CAPABLE OF THIS FORCEFUL RAPE WHERE THE WOMAN IS HURTING AND THE MAN BECOMES AROUSED!!! In fact if most men saw this happening the perpetrator would likely be attacked by him! Active intervention would be made in some form by most all men. According to Psychology of Women Quarterly (references later in article) only 2% of rapes occur in this way.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]--I found an article disputing this finding. However it seems to be consistent with ill health of children from fatherless homes as found true by more substantial sources. I can say that indeed since forceful violent rape is a pathology it makes sense that an ill background of the perpetrator is a given--

I BELIEVE THAT RAPE CAN ONLY BE DEFINED IN TERMS OF (1)-A FORCEFUL PATHOLOGICAL ACT OF VIOLENCE and (2)-PASSIONATE INTERPLAY BUT ACTIVE RESISTANCE WHERE BOTH PHYSICAL AND VERBAL "NO!" is made clear. (3) Situations in which the victim is unable to express the "NO!" response such as unconsciousness or where she is the ONLY party under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The rest of cases are disputable and misunderstood and improperly conceived do to gender bias and cultural perception and expectation rather than physcological and physiological circumstances, especially given the environments (majority take place in the home) and relational context in play where these events take place. I will make my case for this below.

It is my belief that that (1) (2) and (3) are the only forms of rape and the rest are tentative situations and disputable. Given the statistics below I will make the point that these tentative and disputable situations more often than not lead to the majority of rape allegations and convictions. Further more in any case the incident must be proven that it took place in such a manner specified above without a reasonable doubt or the case will be dropped. This is not currently the case. Many convictions are made by a jury of the public who have preconceived notions of rape and men. Rape has the severe consequences of up to 15 years in prison in NON VIOLENT RAPE. Many men are hurt from such gross injustice and demonization. This is compounded by feminists affect on social perceptions of the issue of Rape. Being singular, ideological, devisive and cruel. Again I will illustrate this below.

MANY RAPE CASES ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY: Step (1) A PASSIONATE INTERPLAY AND FEELINGS (EXPRESSED OR NOT EXPRESSED) BY ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS,(2)SEXUAL INTERCOURSE TAKES PLACE WITH INTERNAL NON CONSENT THAT IS NOT EXPRESSED, OR IS MISUNDERSTOOD WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. (3) REGRET TAKES PLACE BY ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS.(4) RAPE ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE BY THE WOMAN AND THE MAN IS PLACEED IN PRISON FOR MANY YEARS.

(IT IS CURRENTLY MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT MEN CAN NOT REGRET THE SEX ACT AND FURTHERMORE THAT IT IS ALWAYS CORRELATED TO WILLFUL INTENT BY THE MYTH OF INSEPARABLE CONNECTION TO AROUSAL FROM ERECTION) ORAL SEX PERFORMED ON A MAN WHILE "UNABLE TO GIVE CONCENT" WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL IS, IN A LEGAL CONTEXT RAPE. NEVER THE LESS NO ONE TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY.) MEN ARE CAPABLE OF FEELING DEEP SHAME AND REGRET FROM SEX. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF BEING VIOLATED SEXUALLY. HOWEVER IF HE DID NOT MAKE IT EXPLICITLY CLEAR AND TRAUMA CAN NOT BE QUANTIFIED THEN THIS IS NOT RAPE.

ONE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE ACTUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM IN ANY RAPE CASE MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO QUANTIFY THE OFFENSE. MANY RAPE CASES ARE PROSECUTED BASED OFF EXPRESSED OR ASSUMED SUBJECTIVE FEMALE FEELINGS AND ASSUMED TRAUMA THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT QUANTIFIED. WE DO INDEED HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO SCAN FEMALE BRAINS UNDER FUNCTIONAL MRI WHILE SHOWING THEM IMAGES OR OTHER STIMULUS IN ORDER TO ASSES ACTUAL TRAUMA. I BELIEVE THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW RAPE AND IT'S ASSOCIATED CONVICTIONS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SUCH INFORMATION. HOWEVER SUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE VIED AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL GIVEN THAT PRIOR TRAUMA CAN INFLUENCE SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS TOWARD THE ENCOUNTER IN QUESTION.

THE SCENARIO ABOVE HAS ALSO (AND ALMOST MOST OFTEN OCCURED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IN 47% OF ALL RAPE CASES AND MOST PROBABLY OVER HALF OF CASES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR BOTH)TAKEN PLACE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL. THOUGH BOTH PARTIES ARE EQUALLY INTOXICATED AND EQUALLY UNABLE TO MAKE PROPER JUDGMENT OR EVEN REMEMBER THE INCIDENT, RESPONSIBILITY IS STILL PLACED ON THE BOY OR MAN TO MAINTAIN COMPOSURE, CONTROL AND PROPER JUDGMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY AMOUNT OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL AND HE IS SEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTS OF SEX.

MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVEN AND MOST MEN AND PERHAPS WOMEN KNOW THAT AN ERECTION OFTEN TIMES IS NOT ALWAYS CORRELATED WITH AROUSAL AND OFTEN TIMES CAN OCCUR INVOLUNTARILY AND SEPARATE FROM ACTUAL AROUSAL. PERHAPS EVEN MORE SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL. SIGNALS ARE ACTUALLY SENT THAT ARE TELLING THE PENIS TO BECOME ERECT AT ALL TIMES AND VICE VERSA THROUGH THE BALANCED SIGNALS OF THE SYMPATHETIC AND PARASYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM. IT IS WHEN THE SIGNALS BECOME BLOCKED, IMPARED AND OUT OF BALANCE IN THE AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM THAT AN ERECTION CAN OCCUR. IN FACT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CAN OCCUR IN THE FORM OF ERECTION AND THEN AROUSAL OR AROUSAL AND THEN ERECTION. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR FEMALE LUBRICATION OF THE VAGINA. AROUSAL IS NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO LUBRICATION RESPONSE. Alcohol actually increases suseptibiity to this to a point and then decreases suseptibility when larger amounts are consumed. Not to mention how other drugs may affect our physiology.

MY POINT IS THAT AN ERECTION CAN NOT BE CORRELATED OR CONNECTED WITH AROUSAL NOR CAN THE LUBRICATION OF THE VAGINA. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US????????

BOTH PARTIES ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND THE INVOLUNTARY RESPONSE OF VAGINAL LUBRICATION TAKES PLACE (IN THE FORM OF ARROUSAL THEN LUBRICATION OR LUBRICATION THEN AROUSAL THEN THE INVOLUNTARY RESPONSE OF ERECTION TAKES PLACE IN THE SAME FASHION. WE ARE THEN LEFT WITH THE VARIABLE OF JUDGMENT AND WE ALL KNOW THAT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL THE SAME BRAIN CENTERS FOR JUDGMENT ARE IMPAIRED. SO WE ARE BOTH ON EQUAL GROUND SO FAR, LETS CONTINUE. IT TAKES JUST AS MUCH EFFORT TO GET THE PENIS INSIDE THE VAGINA BY BOTH PARTIES UNLESS VIOLENCE IS USED. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY EASILY. WE ARE LEFT WITH NO VARIABLE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTIONS OF THE MAN OR WOMAN AT THIS POINT SO WHAT IS LEFT, THE FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT SEX AND MAKING LOVE IS SOMETHING THAT A MAN DOES TO A WOMAN AND IS DONE SO IN EVERY CASE and THE MYTH THAT AROUSAL IS ALWAYS PRESENT IN A MALE AND THUS IN EVERY INSTANCE, CORRELATED DIRECTLY TO INTENT FUELED BY DESIRE AND THUS MOTIVE OF ACTION TO SATISFY AROUSAL IS ALWAYS PRESENT AND THUS HIS ACTIONS ARE A WILLFUL RESPONSE WITH AROUSAL BEING THE MOTIVE IN ALL CASES AS THEY ARE SEEN AS INSEPARABLE. ONE CAN SEE FROM THE BELOW THAT EVEN IN CASES OF ABUSE MALE ERECTION RESPONSE AND EVEN ORGASM ARE POSSIBLE.

http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html>>Male erection response and misunderstandings: Myth- If a male experiences sexual arousal or orgasm from abuse, this means he was a willing participant or enjoyed it.

In reality, males can respond physically to stimulation (get an erection) even in traumatic or painful sexual situations. Therapists who work with sexual offenders know that one way a perpetrator can maintain secrecy is to label the males sexual response as an indication of his willingness to participate. "You liked it, you wanted it," they'll say. Many survivors feel guilt and shame because they experienced physical arousal while being abused. Physical (and visual or auditory) stimulation is likely to happen in a sexual situation. It does not mean that the male wanted the experience or understood what it meant at the time.

Please understand that according to the Psychology of Women Quarterly rape under the influence of a alcohol by both partners alone constitutes 47% of ALL rape cases and this statistic does not include drug use. According to the same source, of all alleged rapes a vast majority or 67.6% take place in the home of the victim, perpetrator, or shared home. Of these a LARGE majority are of someone of romantic or close involvement with the victim. By viewing the statistics for rape produced by the Women's Quarterly. The numbers are consistent and create an objective picture of rape that contrasts popular belief and those perpetuated by feminists.

30.9% perpetrators home 26.6% in the victims home 10.1% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator.Only 3.6% of rapes occur outdoors.

THE FALLACY IS THAT RAPE IS ASSUMED BECAUSE A MAN IS ALWAYS ASSUMED TO BE AROUSED WHEN INTERCOURSE TAKES PLACE. AROUSAL IS STRONGY ASSOCIATED WITH INDUCING INTENT, INTENT IS THE CAUSATION OF ACTION AND THE ACTION OF !!!WILLFUL!!! INTERCOURSE FURTHERMORE IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPAIRED JUDGEMENT OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL THAT CONSITUTE THE MAJORITY OF RAPE. THUS IT IS FALSELY ASSUMED THAT A MAN IS ALWAYS AROUSED WHEN INTERCOURSE TAKES PLACE. THE ACT OF INTERCOURSE IS ALWAYS VIEWED AS AN ACTION FUELED BY THE INTENT OF AROUSAL BY A MAN AND THUS THE SATISFACTION OF AROUSAL THE MOMENT THE PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA IN ALL INSTANCES WHERE AN ERECTION IS PRESENT. HE IS THE WILLFUL PENETRATOR AND SHE IS THE PASSIVE PARTY BEING PENETRATED REGUARDLESS OF INTOXICATION AND IMPAIRED JUDGEMENT. FURTHERMORE IT TAKES JUST AS MUCH EFFORT TO GET THE PENIS INSIDE THE VAGINA BY BOTH PARTIES. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY EASILY.

IN FACT NOT TO DETRACT FROM THE SERIOUSNESS OF RAPE BUT WITH AN OPEN MIND IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXCERCISE FOR MEN AND WOMEN TO ROLE PLAY TO EXPERIENCE HOW HARD IT IS TO PENETRATE A WOMAN WITH CONSTRICTED MUSCLES OF VAGINISMUS AND FORCEFUL LEG CLOSURE. INDEED I BELIEVE THAT UNDER GREAT STRESS THE VAGINA IS CAPABLE OF PROTECTING ITSELF HOWEVER CRAZY THAT SOUNDS AND UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS PENETRATION IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. MY POINT BEING THAT IN MOST CASES BOTH PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE OTHER THAN WHEN FORCE IS USED. THAT INDEED THERE IS QUITE A DISPARITY BETWEEN FORCEFUL AND NOT FORCEFUL RAPE GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE OF FEMALE DEFENSE MECHANISMS SHE IS CAPABLE OF ENACTING THROUGH TRAMA INDUCED VAGINISMUS AND PHYSICAL DEFENSE.

I BELIEVE SEX AND MAKING LOVE IS SEEN IN OUR CULTURE AS SOMETHING THAT IS DONE TO A WOMAN BY A MAN LEADING TO PROBLEMS IN ROMANTIC UNDERSTANDING OF MEN AND MEN'S NEEDS. SO TO EXPRESS IT CRUDELY, IN THE ACT OF "FUCKING" THE WOMAN IS SEEN AS THE ONE BEING "FUCKED". THIS SKEWED PERCEPTION OF POWER DYNAMIC IN THE SEX ACT IS DEMEANING TO BOTH SEXES. IT ALSO LEADS US TO SEE THE VAST MAJORITY OF SEX ACTS ALLEGED AS RAPE IS SOMETHING THE MAN DOES TO HER. SUCH A CLAIM IS A RESULT OF GENDER BIAS, SKEWED PERCEPTION OF THE PHYSIOLOGY AND PHYCOLOGY OF CAUSATIONAL FORCES IN A SEXUAL UNION.

It must be made clear that sex and making love is not something a man does to a woman. Women must be encouraged to partake in the sex act and making love. To take an active role and understand that men do not make love to women it is something that is shared, reciprocated and mutual. That she is not the passive and dominated one and the victim of sex. One can then see how a man and woman are equally responsible for the sex act or making love when both are intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. Currently when both sexes are in an equal state of impaired judgment the man is responsible and it is considered rape, or he can be tried by law for rape, should she so choose.

Regardless if it was a CONSENSUAL SEX ACT or MAKING LOVE while under the influence of drugs or alcohol she can always decide that she was incapable of giving consent at that time and the man is imprisoned for many many years.

Given the power women hold over men I am surprised that as easily as a woman can take a man's freedom away and sentence him to many years of incarceration more men do not carry a dated waiver form for women to sign when they are behind closed doors together. Or perhaps video tape every waking and sleeping moment they are together without a witness.

SO HERE WE ARE, PLEASE KNOW THAT:>>>Statisticly most rapes take place by someone very close to he person and under the influence of drugs or alcohol by one or both parties, takes place in their homes and is non violent. These occurrences of rape, whether perceived or actual are the products of biased cultural perceptions of the sex act and gender roles,lack of judgement from drugs and alcohol, impaired sexual physiological systems and skewed perception of social cues and communication while under the influence. Furthermore I believe that most of these cases occur by people who have a close relationship in almost all cases care deeply or have cared deeply for one another and most of all (CONTRARY TO THE WAY FEMINISTS AND WOMEN'S STUDIES PRESENTS IT) did not always have harmful intentions when alleged rapes occur. More alleged rapes occur from miscommunication, misunderstanding by each sex of the others essential natures and needs and assumptions of those needs by one or both sexes regarding the other. Most rapes are not violent or even often times intentional.

I will say that many boys do not understand and are deeply shamed rather than informed of our essential natures. Boys are taught about rape in an accusational tone rather than in a informational, understanding and compassionate way. There is an undertone of anger towards him when he is taught about rape and he is left with the feeling that he and men are bad and hurt women in numbers. This is not true and is deeply hurtful to his essential nature of love and protective feelings he has inside toward them. Man's heart is broken when he is told these things in this way. It goes against all that he knows and instinctually feels that he is toward and for women.

There is also statutory rape which is defined by actual and normal male attraction to any girl who is biologically able to reproduce, exhibits secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, separated hips and ovulation and is otherwise biologically able and physically ready to reproduce but legal statutes of regulation of male tendency is in place to penalize his attraction to reduce incident of copulation with girls based on age not biology.

In the United States, state statues allow males of any age to copulate with age ranges from girls as young as 14 to 18 years old. Feminists and popular culture fails to recognize this normal male biology of attraction and labels this is pedophilia (SEX WITH A CHILD). THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR MEN TO BE ATTRACTED PHYSICALLY TO ANY YOUTHFUL FEMALE OF REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL AND PHYSICALLY DISPLAYS SUCH POTENTIAL BY THAT OF ADEQUATE BREASTS AND WAIST TO HIP RATIO.

Contemporary society does not recognize this and in fact shames, demonizes and exploits the endless supply of men who are willing to copulate with fertile young women in the show "To Catch a Predator" by Dateline NBC. The show perpetuates the idea that our society is plagued with sick men. When in reality in a biological context men have an overwhelming preference for youth or younger women. Young biologically reproductively capable females ARE ATTRACTIVE TO MALES and subject to the duality of male mating strategy. Youth and beauty are primary sexually selective pressures male biology places on men. (Please see my blog, sexually selective traits of the female.)

Anti-Male messages are so prevalent in our culture that there is fear in the hearts of all when I interact with children at the playground with my newphew. (My nephew is off with my brother and I enjoy interacting with children who bless their heart will come up to a perfect stranger to share and play with you)

I am constantly aware that I am viewed a a potential pedophile rather than a provider and protector of the children. I feel alienated from my society and culture as a man. I can feel the eyes on me at all times. I am deeply saddened by this. I feel that I am an oppressor and source of harm toward women and children by default in my society and I am deeply pained and tortured by this. I want to be seen and accepted for what I and many men know that we are inside. I want for women to know and see me this way as by enlarge and and in GREAT NUMBERS this is the truth of men.

I believe that the current environment will actually create the men that we are told that we are. A monster will behave as a monster if this is what he believes he is. Please love our boys and men and know the pride and swelling he feels deep within his chest when empowered and taught that he is loved and appreciated.

OTHER ARTICLES DISPELLING THE RAPE MYTH:http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."

Monday, December 29, 2008

Erin Pizzey, founder of the battered wives' refuge, on how militant feminists — with the collusion of Labour's leading women — hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonize all men.

January 22, 2007 — During 1970, I was a young housewife with a husband, two children, two dogs and a cat. We lived in Hammersmith, West London, and I didn't see much of my husband because he worked for TV's Nationwide. I was lonely and isolated, and longed for something other than the usual cooking, cleaning and housework to enter my life.

By the early Seventies, a new movement for women — demanding equality and rights — began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. Among the jargon, I read the words "solidarity" and "support." I passionately believed that women would no longer find themselves isolated from each other, and in the future could unite to change our society for the better.

Within a few days I had the address of a local group in Chiswick, and I was on my way to join the Women's Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay £3 and ten shillings as a joining fee, told to call other women "sisters" and that our meetings were to be called "collectives."

My fascination with this new movement lasted only a few months. At the huge "collectives," I heard shrill women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent tendencies. I stood on the same platforms trying to reason with the leading lights of this new organization.

I ended up being thrown out by the movement. My crime was to warn some of the women working in the Women's Liberation Movement office off Shaftesbury Avenue that if it persisted in cooperating with a plan to bomb Biba, a fashionable clothes shop in Kensington, I would call the police.

Biba was bombed because the women's movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise devoted to sexualizing women's bodies.

I decided that I was wasting my time trying to influence what, to my mind, was a Marxist/ feminist movement touting for money from gullible women like myself.

By that time, I'd met a small group of women in my area who agreed with me. We persuaded Hounslow council to give us a tiny house in Belmont Terrace in Chiswick. We had two rooms upstairs, two rooms downstairs, a kitchen and an outside lavatory. We installed a telephone and typewriter, and we were in business.

Every day after dropping my children at school, I went to our little house, which we called the Women's Aid. Soon women from all over Chiswick were coming to ask for help. At last we had somewhere women could meet each other and bring their children. My long, lonely days were over.

But then something happened that made me understand that our role was going to be more than just a forum where women could exchange ideas. One day, a lady came in to see us. She took off her jersey, and we saw that she was bruised and swollen across her breasts and back. Her husband had taken a chair leg to her. She looked at me and said: "No one will help me."

For a moment I was somersaulted back in time. I was six years old, standing in front of a teacher at school. My legs were striped and bleeding from a whipping I had received from an ironing cord. "My mother did this to me last night," I said. "No wonder," replied the teacher. "You're a dreadful child."

No one would help me then and nobody would ever imagine that my beautiful, rich mother — who was married to a diplomat — could be a violent abuser.

Until that moment 35 years later, I had buried my past and assumed that because we had social workers, probation officers, doctors, hospitals and solicitors, victims of violence had enough help.

I quickly discovered, as battered women with their children poured into the house, that whatever was going on behind other people's front doors was seen as nobody else's business.

If someone was beaten up on the street, it was a criminal offence; the same beating behind a closed door was called "a domestic" and the police had no rights or power to interfere.

The shocking fact for me was that there had been a deafening silence on the subject of domestic violence.

All the social agencies knew about domestic violence, but nobody talked about it. I searched for literature to help me understand this epidemic, but there was nothing to read except a few articles on child abuse in medical journals.

So in 1974 I decided to write Scream Quietly Or The Neighbours Will Hear, the first book in the world on domestic violence. I revealed that women and children were being abused in their own homes and they couldn't escape because the law wouldn't protect them.

If a husband claimed he would have his wife back, she couldn't claim any money from the Department of Health and Social Security, and social services could only offer to take the children into care.

Meanwhile, our little house was packed with women fleeing their violent partners — sometimes as many as 56 mothers and children in four rooms. All had terrible stories, but I recognized almost immediately that not all the women were innocent. Some were as violent as the men, and violent towards their children.

The social workers involved with these women told me I was wasting my time because the women would only return to their partners.

I was determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different threat.

I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.

In 1974, the women living in my refuge organized a meeting in our local church hall to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.

We were astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country.

After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers — and what I had most feared happened.

In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.

Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.

They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees.

Women with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over 12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation.

Our group in Chiswick worked with as many refuges as we could. Good, caring women still work in refuges across the country, but many women working in the feminist refuges, about 350, admit they are failing women who most need them.

With the first donation we received in 1972, we employed a male playgroup leader because we felt our children needed the experience of good, gentle men. We devised a treatment programme for women who recognized that they, too, were violent and dysfunctional. And we concentrated on children hurt by violence and sexual abuse.

Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organizations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.

Despite attacks in the Press from feminist journalists and threatening anonymous telephone calls, I continued to argue that violence was a learned pattern of behaviour from early childhood.

When, in the mid-Eighties, I published Prone To Violence, about my work with violence-prone women and their children, I was picketed by hundreds of women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: "All men are bastards" and "All men are rapists."

Because of violent threats, I had to have a police escort around the country.

It was bad enough that this relatively small group of women was influencing social workers and police. But I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men.

In 1990, Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became an adviser to Labour's Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she's in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy paper called The Family Way.

It said: "It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."

It was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.

Hewitt, in a book by Geoff Dench called Transforming Men published in 1995, said: "But if we want fathers to play a full role in their children's lives, then we need to bring men into the play groups and nurseries and the schools. And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can trust men with children."

In 1998, however, the Home Office published a historic study which stipulated that men as well as women could be victims of domestic violence.

With that report in my hand, I tried to reason with Joan Ruddock, who was then Minister for Women. The figures for battered men were "minuscule" she insisted and she continued to refer to men only as "perpetrators."

For nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children.

Men can be accused of violence towards their partners and sexual abuse without evidence. Courts discriminate against fathers and refuse to allow them access to their children on the whims of vicious partners.

Of course, there are dangerous men who manipulate the court systems and social services to persecute their partners and children. But by blaming all men, we have diluted the focus on this minority of men and pushed aside the many men who would be willing to work with women towards solutions.

I believe that the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And all that was yoked — unforgivably — to the debate about domestic violence.

To my mind, it has never been a gender issue — those exposed to violence in early childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of whether they are girls or boys.

I look back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places where people — men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual abuse — could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second chance to learn to live peacefully.

I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghettoized the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the refuge movement.

We need an inclusive movement that offers support to everyone that needs it. As for me — I will always continue to work with anyone who needs my help or can help others — and yes, that includes men.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT IF THERE ANY ANY COMMENTS TO ANY OF MY BLOG POSTS TO PLEASE REPLY WITH AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT OF LOGIC ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT GENDER ROLES OR MALE AND FEMALE BEHAVIOR IS SOLELY A SOCIOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT OF COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUS MALE EFFORT TO OPPRESS WOMEN AND NOT THAT OF OUR ESSENTIAL NATURE OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.

These articles are of my own opinion and do not reflect the views or opinion of any other. THEY ARE COLLECTED THOUGHTS THAT ARE CONSTANTLY BEING EDITED, FORMULATED AND RE-EXPRESSED. The plight of women and men and the American family is important to me. My inspiration comes from my experience in a Women's Studies course in college. I was so angry and hurt by their approach and agenda and surprised that such a radical ideology could have established itself in the science and psychology wings of almost all our educational institutions. The hate, division and harm of feminism on our society has become apparent in many ways. Please understand the I LOVE WOMEN and see them as they truly are, BEAUTIFUL. It is for women and my desire to love them and for them to love me that I sacrifce. It is for all the men that are very deeply hurt, shamed and demonized by feminists. It is my fear that feminism may indeed succeed in turning men and myself included into deeply resentful, violent and angry monsters we are purported to be. I have channeled my anger, resentment and deep seated pain into seeking out the truth of our essential nature so that I may be close to her again. To love devote and sacrifice myself to her. To come together to compliment our differences, in the elegant and balanced harmony of dance with my opposite my beautiful compliment that is woman.

It is my contention to intelligently rebuke feminism in contemporary society and in my country the United States. I will illustrate how feminism is a secular divisive special interest idiology which defines itself and women's experience soley in relation to what it affirms is the deliberate collective and concious oppression by men. I will illustrate how it supports it's views by misinformation and refusal to accept modern science, congnitive, evolutionary, biological as false information distributed by The Patriarcy to oppress women. I will illustrate how feminisms view of gender, gender identity and gender roles as a purely social construct established by a collective male concious effort to oppress women is false. And finally I will illustrate how this special interest agenda has caused damage to our society, the relationship of men, women and children and the family. I will show you how pop psychology and pop cultural beliefs have permeated our culture and created a division of men women and family. I will show that the feminist ideal of androgynous society is a false ideology and harmful to us all. I will attempt to bridge the divide between the hate and ideology of feminism and a true understanding of how and why we are the way we are. I will make the case that men and women arrived here together.

Before you read do know that I LOVE WOMEN VERY MUCH! I have a sharp and particular grievance with modern feminism which you will see intelligently expressed throughout my blog. For women reading my blog please do not dismiss me as you have been taught. Open your heart and mind and see how I feel as a man. See how many men feel. Learn about our essential nature and embrace us once again.

FIRST OFF I DON'T AGREE YOUR VIEW THAT GENDER ROLES AND SOCIETY ARE PURELY A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT BASED OFF CONCIOUS HUMAN REASON ALONE AND YOUR REFUSAL TO BELIVE THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT DIFFERENT. I BELIEVE NOT ONLY ARE WE DIFFERENT BUT WE ARE IN MANY IF NOT ALL RESPECTS EXACT OPPOSITES. MEN AND WOMEN ARE MEANT TO COMPLIMENT EACHOTHERS WEAKNESS. STOP DENYING ESSENTIAL FEMALE STREGHTS AND CALLING THEM WEAKNESSES THAT ARE EXPLOITED BY MEN. STOP CLAIMING YOURSELVES AS VICTIMS OF MEN AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. STOP SAYING THAT MEN AND WOMEN DON'T NEED EACHOTHER BECAUSE WE DO. FOR A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT NEED A MAN MAKES IT SO THAT MEN DO NOT NEED WOMEN AND SO WE GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS WHICH IS A TERRIBLE THING. THIS IS A HORRABLE THING TO BE TEACHING PEOPLE.

MEN AND WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE SAME STRENGTHS AS THE OTHER AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS IN A MATED PAIR BOND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING TWO DIFFERENT SEXES.

Stop denying that through out evolutionary history women have NOT sought tall,strong,dominant,resorcfully successfull males and continue to do so to this day.

Stop denying that you look for the very thing in men that you are compaining about. men have always willingly given women the fruits of our labor and if asked why we will say it is because we love you. Stop denying a very simple concept called male male competition and female choice. It is all around you in the animal kingdom if you bother to take a look. Men are dominant over territory and resources because we have to be and we are willing to kill eachother to do it. Every line between countries on the face of the earth was drawn in the blood of men. All empires are built on the stacked bodies of dead boys. Stop denying that men do all these things against you and not for you. Yes that's right men do it all for you.

Stop mentioning that women are 40% more likely to be in poverty when 85% of the homeless are men.

STOP RALLYING AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT WOMEN MAY INFACT NOT BE ENTERING ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL OCCUPATIONS OF THE SCIENCES BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES AND GOD FORBID DIFFERENT INTERESTS THAN MEN. I GO TO THE BOOK STORE ALL THE TIME AND NEVER SEE WOMEN READING POPULAR MECHANICS MAGAZINE. I NEVER SEE WOMEN STANDING AROUND TALKING ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK AND THE FINER POINTS OF LCD AND PLASMA SCREEN TELEVISIONS. START LEARNING HOW THINGS WORK AND WORK ON AND FIX THEM YOURSELF IF YOUR INTERESTED. STOP FIRING PEOPLE LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD, Lawrence Summers FOR SUGESTING ANY OF THIS WHILE IT IS OK FOR MAREEN DOWD A NEW YORK TIMES COLUBNIST TO WRITE BOOKS LIKE "ARE MEN NECESSARY" AND SPEAKS OF MEN GOING EXTINCT WHILE SITEING QUAKPOTS AND PSUEDO SCIENCE. BELIEVE ME IF A NEW YORK TIMES COLUBNIST THAT WAS A MAN WERE TO SUGGEST THAT WOMEN ARE GOING EXTINCT AND QUESTION THEIR VALUE TO EXIST WE WOULD ALL HEAR ABOUT IT.

I THINK YOU DO A GREAT DISSERVICE TO HUMANITY WHEN YOU DENY MODERN CONGNITIVE SCIENCEs. IN THIS DAY IN AGE WE ARE ABLE TO SEE BRAIN ACTIVITY AS IT IS HAPPENING AND HAVE PROVEN THAT MANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN EXIST. I URGE YOU TO START TAKING AN ACTIVE INTEREST IN SCIENCE AND STOP REFERING TO IT AS "PROPAGANDA OF SOME PATRIACHY" HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT OUR CURRENT PLACE IN SOCIETY AND ALL THAT YOU SEE HAS COME FROM THE COLLECTIVE AND CONCIOUS EFFORT OF MEN TO OPPRESS WOMEN. IT'S OBSURED.

I URGE YOU TO PLEASE TAKE AN INTEREST IN EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. TO COME OUT AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH SCIENTISTS LIKE SARAH HRDY, HELLEN FISHER, AND DAVID M BUSS,

YOU want equality, do away with alimony or what I like to call "woman support" for women that can work on their own. If you leave a man he has no obligation to support you.

Feminsits have the saying "my body my choice" when men have no choice. We are shipped off to our deaths in war to defend the territory and resources of our country OR take responsibility for yourselves and serve your country when your needed and sign up for the DRAFT.

AS FAR AS ABORTION IS CONCERNED THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO ALLEVIATE YOURSELF FROM THE RESPONSIBILIY OF BRINGING A CHILD INTO THE WORLD AFTER CONCEPTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. AS WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THE CHILD AT VARY LEAST MEN SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO ABORT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHILD IN ANY FORM AS WELL AND A WOMAN CAN MAKE HER CHOICE ACCORDINGLY. CONCEPTION IS A MUTUAL THING NOT SOMETHING THAT A MAN DOES TO A WOMAN. HE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE ISSUE AND NOT FORCED TO CONCEIVE A CHILD.

STOP VIEWING SEX AND MAKING LOVE AS SOMETHING A MAN DOES TO YOU AND ANYTHING DONE TO PLEASURE A MAN AS DEMEANING TO WOMEN.

STOP SAYING YOU DON'T WANT US TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR YOU AND START EARNING MENS TRUST BACK. WHO KNOWS WE MIGHT OPEN A DOOR FOR YOU.

Let the 90% of fathers who loose their children by default in divorce have the god given right to be a father

stop taking our children away from us in divorce and then call us dead beat dads. Many men only get to see their child 4 days a month. I don't call that fatherhood. Stop seeing us as walking wallets and expecting us to support children we are not allowed to be a father to. Although most men pay anyway and infact 46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support. As opposed to the 26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support. SO YOU TELL ME WHO IS THE DEADBEAT NOW!

Do away with biased scholorships, healthcare funding, government mandated contracts to a business just because it is owned by a woman. Many states have passed laws that give women affirmative action and some have struck it down but it is a constant battle against you feminists to hold onto OUR rights as men.

According to the cival rights act of 1964 discrimination by sex was outlawed so why do you attempt to end the so called discrimination against women with discrimination against men through affrimative action. The cival rights act has been thrown in the garbage.

Why do you say that women get paid 76 cents to every dollar a man makes when this statistic was compiled using a blanket approach by taking all the men and women in the workforce and adding up their wages. In reality women make 96 to 98 percent of what men make when doing the same job and I bet there is even more disparity in pay between men doing the same job.

STOP CONCENTRATING ON MONEY AND START LOBBYING FOR A FAMILY LEAVE ACT THAT GIVES MEN AND WOMEN PAID TIME OFF TO BE WITH THEIR CHILD. THE CANADIANS HAVE 6 MONTHS EACH FOR BOTH THE MAN AND THE WOMAN, PAID! WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ADAQUATE VACATION TIME IN THIS COUNTRY.

STOP SAYING THAT 1 IN 4 WOMEN ARE RAPED. STOP inviting the label of rape victim to be applied to anyone who has ever drank too much, had a sexual encounter, and then regretted it later.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES AND GET RID OF YOUR VICTIM MENTALITY. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID IT BUT YOU MANAGED TO MAKE IT LAW THAT IF A MAN AND WOMAN ARE EQUALLY INTOXICATED BY ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AND END UP HAVING SEX THAT SOMEHOW IT IS HIS FAULT AND IT IS RAPE. MANY GOOD BOYS ARE ROTING IN PRISON BECAUSE OF THIS.

MEANWHILE A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman convicted of murder. Since 1954 approximately 70,000 women have murdered 60,000 men but not one woman has been executed for killing only a man. Women do receive the death penalty but only men actually get executed and women get reprieve.

3 men are murdered for every women Statisticly the more violent the crime the more likely the victim will be male. 94% of all violent crimes is committed against men. If you have not noticed most crime is done to aquire resources and is directly associated with poverty. In other words when men do not have an opportunity to vie for competitive advantage for resources we will aquire them through crime and most always against other men.

I URGE YOU ALL TO READ THE BOOK "THE MYTH OF MALE POWER" BY DR. WARREN FARRELL. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER HIM, HE WAS SAT ON THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN.

MY INSPIRATION COMES FROM A DEEP SEATED ANGER AND RESENTMENT AND PAIN I ENDURED WHILE ATTENDING A WOMAN'S STUDIES COURSE AT SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN MISSION VIEJO CALIFORNIA IN 2001. SINCE THEN I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIND MY SELF AS A MAN AND MY ESSENTIAL NATURE BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS NOT WHAT WOMEN WERE SAYING I WAS.

PEOPLE OFTEN ASK THE QUESTION, IS CHIVALRY DEAD AND THE ANSWER IS YES. I CAN TELL YOU THIS BECAUSE FEMINISTS KILLED MY CHIVALRY. AND SINCE THAT COURSE I NEVER OPENED A DOOR FOR A WOMAN AND AM TRYING TO GET OVER MY FEELINGS OF EMBARASMENT WHEN DOING SO WHEN I OPEN IT FOR A GIRLFRIEND.

Subscribe To REBUKING FEMINISM

About Me

Premise Claimer

To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society in the United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section and at REBUKEFEM@YAHOO.COM.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people"

- 10th Amendment United States Constitution

Feminism stands on the principal of equality or classlessness. These principals are the hallmark of Marxist socialist theory. Essentially equal outcome by unequal means and unequal protection under law to reach these ends.

Males being a minority both in numbers and a minority of the voting majority has lead to class conflict, oppression and division based off "gender" of this minority class.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, (the female voting and numerical majority) that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority (males) possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression" - President Thomas Jefferson.

Affirmative Action, Title IX, VAWA, Divorce, Family and Child Custody Law to name a few.

Make no mistake, women are not your natural enemy. However, they are the body politic of feminism and the female political agency responsible for it. All women are responsible for feminism and the actions of their union. They have created class division between men and women toward the ends of dividing us both. The division of male and female as separate classes with unequal representation under law and policy has been the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Feminism has destroyed the common felicity between men and women. Feminism removed ALL male rights in marriage and thus divorce while absolving women of all liability of commitment. Feminism has removed the right to fatherhood. Men have no place in the family and should not commit to the institution of it. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism.